Analysis Methodology
Evalify runs a structured, multi-stage methodology that mirrors a disciplined FTO workflow. Understanding the stages helps you interpret the output and judge where your own review adds the most value.
1 · Subject-matter decomposition
Evalify parses your input and decomposes the subject matter into distinct technical aspects, each expressed in claim-style language. This framing — treating the product as a set of concrete, chartable features rather than a narrative — is what lets the downstream analysis be specific.
You can review and refine these aspects before the full analysis runs. Curating them (adding, removing, or sharpening aspects, or seeding key concepts) is the single highest-leverage way to focus the search and charting on what matters for your matter.
2 · Search
For each aspect, Evalify runs a semantic and classification-based search across a comprehensive, licensed global patent corpus, scoped to the jurisdictions you selected. It combines conceptual (semantic) matching with classification signals to build a candidate set, then screens for relevance so the analysis focuses on references that plausibly read on the subject matter rather than an unfiltered result list.
3 · Claim retrieval and construction
For the relevant candidates, Evalify retrieves and normalizes the independent claims — the operative claims for an infringement read — as the basis for charting. Claim language in other source languages is handled so the analysis works over a consistent, English-language claim set.
4 · Claim charting — the core
This is the heart of the analysis. For each aspect, Evalify constructs a limitation-by-limitation claim chart against the relevant claims: it maps each claim limitation to the corresponding feature of the subject matter and assesses whether it is present. This all-elements framing — rather than a holistic "similarity" judgment — is what makes the output defensible and lets you see exactly which limitation drives (or defeats) a potential read, and where the subject matter is clear.
5 · Legal status, family, and term
Relevance is not risk. For each relevant reference, Evalify assesses legal status (in force, lapsed, expired, abandoned, or pending), surfaces patent family context and current assignee, and estimates term/expiry — so an expired or abandoned reference is weighted very differently from an enforceable one, and pending applications are treated as a distinct future-risk category.
6 · Risk assessment and FTO score
Evalify weighs the charted overlaps together with legal status to produce a risk assessment per aspect and reference, an overall FTO score across the subject matter, and a written FTO assessment. The strategy lens applied to the analysis (e.g. a clearance-oriented read) is reflected in how risk is framed and weighted.
7 · Prior art and invalidity evidence
For the strongest blockers, Evalify surfaces non-patent-literature (NPL) prior art as potential invalidity evidence — a validity angle that a time-boxed clearance search frequently omits.
8 · Courses of action
For each potential blocker, Evalify generates concrete mitigation strategies — design-around, licensing, challenging validity, awaiting expiry, and others — as a starting point for your strategic recommendations. It also surfaces adjacent-market opportunities where the subject matter would face more freedom.
9 · Consistency review
Before the analysis completes, Evalify runs a final consistency pass over the finished work-product to reconcile any tension between the detailed findings, the risk assessment, and the score — so the report tells one coherent story.
Throughout the report, an interactive assistant grounded in your specific analysis lets you interrogate any finding, reference, or term. See Reading Your Report.